Fleet Service apathy

[BLUTO]

PJ,

I forgot to mention that in addition to a lack of moxie and determination and being ethically challedged, I failed to remind the forum as to your inability to reason due a heavy a reliance upon ad nauseum cliches and platitudes complementing your narrow scope of understanding, as demonstrated within your proceeding post.

I apologize for not making myself more clear earlier.

So Corrects Jester.

and this from sobody who uses car 54 cliché
you r so phoney even nelsons own team knows who u r!
u are snorting nelson koolaid powder strait if u think
anybody belive u.
everybody I talk to is now going 2 keep N/D!
occupie has almost no supporters now!

 

[Tim Nelson]

The New Direction just announced on the April 28 iam update, they are 'neutral' on the AMR merger deal with US AIRWAYS.

Hey Rich, did you forget that 400, and an additonal 150 US AIRWAYS IAM members are scheduled to be laid off on June 5? And you are neutral on a T/A from US AIRWAYS management that protects more TWU jobs? It's pretty easy to see where US AIRWAYS is going with this. What the heck is wrong with you? How about supporting our members and coming out against this BS. Unbelievable!

Onward!

 

[700UW]

Why would the IAM come out against a merger that hasnt taken place and no details have been talked about to the IAM from US about it?

What if it actually improves and benefits the US IAM members?

Last time I checked there is no merger agreement between US and AA, and AA is rebuffing it and has the exclusive rights to the POR unitl 9/28/2012.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Why would the IAM come out against a merger that hasnt taken place and no details have been talked about to the IAM from US about it?

What if it actually improves and benefits the US IAM members?

Last time I checked there is no merger agreement between US and AA, and AA is rebuffing it and has the exclusive rights to the POR unitl 9/28/2012.

What we know is that hundreds of US AIRWAYS fleet service are being laid off. We also know that management signed a pact with the TWU to secure more AMR jobs. How much more would you have to know? If there isn't going to be any merger or this isn't happening then why even be neutral on it? Remember, being neutral about something gives recognition to the same thing that being opposed or supportive does.

And neutral or opposed can both fade if the AMR deal is just a mirage.

Opposing what we already know, is aggressive, and that's the way it should be when management is flirting with other unions and guaranteeing more of their jobs when our members are getting pink slips.

Onward!

 

[freedom]

i'm in favor of the merger ... it will mean more job security in the long run for our workers ...

 

[Tim Nelson]

And, of course, now we learn today that management at United just announced that it will close 5 United cargo centers, ORD, SFO, BOS, PHL, DFW. I wonder if Delaney and the new direction are going to organize another pizza and Dr pepper boycott when management ruffled their feathers a couple months ago.

Onward!

 

[Tim Nelson]

i'm in favor of the merger ... it will mean more job security in the long run for our workers ...

Freedom, it could mean that if we stuck to our guns and focused on attaining a US AIRWAYS contract first that addresses the most important question, i.e., seniority, and then improve upon your contract first. But when it initially is announced among US AIRWAYS layoffs and AMR guarantees, that is unacceptable. And who knows if the combined would keep PHX if it has a mega hub in DFW.

Onward!

 

[700UW]

What we know is that hundreds of US AIRWAYS fleet service are being laid off. We also know that management signed a pact with the TWU to secure more AMR jobs. How much more would you have to know? If there isn't going to be any merger or this isn't happening then why even be neutral on it? Remember, being neutral about something gives recognition to the same thing that being opposed or supportive does.

And neutral or opposed can both fade if the AMR deal is just a mirage.

Opposing what we already know, is aggressive, and that's the way it should be when management is flirting with other unions and guaranteeing more of their jobs when our members are getting pink slips.

Onward!

You deflected and didnt answer.

The IAM made a statement, even the Grand Lodge did, because there is a potential and Doug has made it quite clear.

The MOU with the TWU still means there will be thousands of layoffs at AMR, about 6,800 between maintenance and fleet.

But dont let the facts get in your way Timmy, you never do.

Friday April 20, 2012:

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today reassured its members at US Airways that it will aggressively represent their interests in any potential takeover of bankrupt American Airlines.

“The IAM’s first responsibility is to protect the seniority, job-security, wages, benefits and pensions of our members at US Airways,” said IAM Transportation General Vice President Sito Pantoja. “We have a long history at US Airways, with substantial experience defending members during mergers and uncertain economic times. We are fully prepared to protect our members as this process unfolds.”

While US Airways today made its intention to acquire American Airlines public, the move is certain to encounter many obstacles, including bankruptcy court, shareholder approval and regulatory scrutiny.

“Too often we have seen airline consolidation advance at the expense of airline workers, except for the corporate executives who cut jobs, raise fares, reduce service, and shower themselves with cash and bonuses,” said Pantoja. “The IAM will oppose any merger that would take place at the expense of workers, the flying public, and the communities served by these two airlines.”

In the days and weeks ahead, the IAM will provide employees with more detailed information regarding the merger process and what to expect.

“Employees at both carriers can be assured that the IAM will utilize every available resource to ensure they are protected during this process," said Pantoja. “The IAM will fight for the fair treatment of all employees at US Airways and American Airlines.”

 

[Jester]

Freedom, it could mean that if we stuck to our guns and focused on attaining a US AIRWAYS contract first that addresses the most important question, i.e., seniority, and then improve upon your contract first. But when it initially is announced among US AIRWAYS layoffs and AMR guarantees, that is unacceptable. And who knows if the combined would keep PHX if it has a mega hub in DFW.

Tim,

I am not all that happy either that US FSAs have been placed on the back burner, but I also understand the Tempe Boys reasons for the making a quick move to secure the support of the various union groups at AA. The US FSA agreement could take several months, if not years to conclude negotiations, while the AA people are facing the realities of their Management's Section 1113 threats, so significantly better offer makes an US option look attactive. However, time is critical and getting labor support after the mistakes of attempted merger with Delta demonstrated.

In fairness, AA will getting lay-offs, just as US will be getting its own lay-offs, so while there are "guarantees" it simply means the lay-offs won't be as deep as first planned by AA management. However, I cannot agree with Car 54 backing away from the negotiating table until he knows all the details of the US proposal to AA's FSAs agents. Seniority protection, maybe an option "me too" clause if the AA agreement is more desirable... we can still move forward without wasting time.

So Suggests Jester.

 

[ChockJockey]

Freedom, it could mean that if we stuck to our guns and focused on attaining a US AIRWAYS contract first that addresses the most important question, i.e., seniority, and then improve upon your contract first.

If an improved pre-merger CBA with Fleet is not part of Management's master merger plan then it probably won't happen. Considering how long it seems to take, I think the chances are pretty good we'll be looking at workforce integrations with AA's people before the membership has anything to vote on, unless that vote is to determine which union is going to represent us. This would be the case regardless who wins any election.

But when it initially is announced among US AIRWAYS layoffs and AMR guarantees, that is unacceptable.

Unacceptable, but inevitable. Either way it looks like there are going to be job cuts at both carriers, and again it matters not which ticket wins the election in June. Since there are going to have to be sacrifices, they may as well be applied to creating a new airline that can actually compete and offer competitive contracts.

And who knows if the combined would keep PHX if it has a mega hub in DFW.

I see what you're trying to do here. Yes, who knows. Among the many reasons Parker is trying to merge with AA is to create an airline with a network comprehensive enough to compete with UA and DL. UA has major ops in LAX, SFO, and DEN. DL has LAX and SLC. AA's ops in LAX are comparable to DL's; without PHX the new AA couldn't effectively compete with UA, DL, or WN on the West Coast. We have an excellent operation in PHX. I'm not worried.

 

[pjirish317]

ograc,

Lets see if you can answer questions regarding the LfP platform.

Item 1. How will you reform the dues? Are the dues not governed by the GL? And I wish we had an electronic tracking system, and an AGC performance review

Item 3. What kind of salary restructuring? Pay cut or pay raise? What exactly are the realities of the industry? Are you saying that the pay for District Officers will be seniority based? Does there have to be a by-law change to accomplish this salary restrucuring?

Item 4. What is a premium contribution requirement?

Item 10. How exactly will you establish this? What would the structure and composition be exactly?

Item 12. How is this related to item 3? And if someone is appointed aren't they in office until the next election? So please explain how Item 3 would affect the appointee?

ograc,

I asked you these questions some time ago. They were questions about the platform that YOU chose to run on. You think I was "baiting" you so to speak, when I was asking question about changes to be made were your ticked to get elected. Do you not think we should ask these questions? And if you would reference item 1, you would see that I absolutely agree that there should be AGC accountability, and an electronic tracking system for grievances. But because I called MW out for his inability to represent the members, I am baiting you. So from now on I will leave MW out of our conversations, ok? And as you can see from the above qouted post of mine, I deleted the remark about MW. So I ask again, the above questions, will you answer them?

 

[pjirish317]

I am not intimidated by you and your leading questions by any means. PJ, I have been around and involved long enough to know whem I am being baited.
1
Past performance is an issue that will be considered in this election regardless of your objections. I don't need to mention names of those I feel have not performed. The membership will decide.

I believe the platform of the Team I'm running with is pretty clear. AGC accountability and electronic tracking of grievances are soley needed. I suppose you are opposed to such a concept. You do not question the team I'm running with as much as you obviously have an axe to grind with one person on the team. You are right, I do not know why you chose to not remain on the Committee, nor why you choose to be involved "to some degree"... whatever that means. 2
What I do know is your posture on this thread has been consistently hostile and defensive toward anyone who has an opposite view point of yours.
3
Your insinuation of ignorance is one example.
4
You can spin it any way you like, but I will not be drawn in.
ograc

1. Fair enough about that subject. I will drop it.
2. You view it as hostile, I view it as calling BS when I see it.
3. It was an ignorant statement you made. You made it not knowing the why's, or the how's of my involvement and my decision to not be on the committee anymore, nor if the members here are apathectic or not, also implying I am the cause of that apathy. I suppose I could have said uneducated about the situation.
4. Were you to be elected, you would absolutely be drawn in, you would have no choice but to sit in the breakrooms you serve and have to answer tougher questions than these, So if you can't handle the pressure on these web boards, you certainly can't handle the pressure of a hostile breakroom full of PO'ed fleet service members. All of them "baiting" you, as you put it.

 

[ograc]

ograc,

I asked you these questions some time ago. They were questions about the platform that YOU chose to run on. You think I was "baiting" you so to speak, when I was asking question about changes to be made were your ticked to get elected. Do you not think we should ask these questions? And if you would reference item 1, you would see that I absolutely agree that there should be AGC accountability, and an electronic tracking system for grievances. But because I called MW out for his inability to represent the members, I am baiting you. So from now on I will leave MW out of our conversations, ok? And as you can see from the above qouted post of mine, I deleted the remark about MW. So I ask again, the above questions, will you answer them?

pjirish317,

Fair enough. I appreciative your understanding I cannot speak for others. I will try to answer your questions, related to the platform of the Leadership for Progress Team, to the best of my ability. First and foremost, I agree the platform for which each Team proposes should be subject to the scrutinity of the members. I believe, the issue of AGC accountability and an electronic tracking system for grievances, as proposed by the Leadership for Progress Team, we are in ageement on. Concerning your question of item 3, pay cut or pay raise, and what is meant by the realities of the industry I will attempt to answer. When the IAM first organized MTC. and Related the AGC salary was based on average wage of the said represented member. Through the years this salary has been the norm. Realities of the industry means this formula will be revisited, based on the salaries of those represented (UA ramp, PCE and US ramp). This proposal will require a proposed by law change subject to a referendum vote by the members. For the sake of length of post I will conclude.

ograc

 

[700UW]

You do realize the IAM organized maintenance in 1949?

 

[pjirish317]

pjirish317,

Fair enough. I appreciative your understanding I cannot speak for others. I will try to answer your questions, related to the platform of the Leadership for Progress Team, to the best of my ability. First and foremost, I agree the platform for which each Team proposes should be subject to the scrutinity of the members. I believe, the issue of AGC accountability and an electronic tracking system for grievances, as proposed by the Leadership for Progress Team, we are in ageement on. Concerning your question of item 3, pay cut or pay raise, and what is meant by the realities of the industry I will attempt to answer. When the IAM first organized MTC. and Related the AGC salary was based on average wage of the said represented member. Through the years this salary has been the norm. Realities of the industry means this formula will be revisited, based on the salaries of those represented (UA ramp, PCE and US ramp). This proposal will require a proposed by law change subject to a referendum vote by the members. For the sake of length of post I will conclude.

ograc

Thank you for the answer. Although, will it be a "weighted" average for all AGC's, or will it be factored for each group?